PACP Committee Report

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Expanding Successful First Nation Education Models

In their submissions, the Auditor General and INAC drew the Committee’s attention to two outstanding examples of successful First Nation education initiatives. In Nova Scotia, the federal and provincial governments passed framework legislation for the Mi’kmaq Education Agreement, which gave nine participating communities the power to make laws related to primary, elementary and secondary education. The agreement also led to the creation of an organization called the MiKwmaw Kina’matnewey to help deliver education. While the Auditor General identified some problems with the implementation of the Mi’kmaq agreement, the agreement has become a model for other First Nation communities interested in improving governance, accountability, pedagogy and financial management. In British Columbia, First Nation communities put together a not-for-profit organization called the First Nations Education Steering Committee, which helps ensure key accountability functions, seeks out and allocate resources where needed and helps with the recruitment of teachers. According to the Auditor General, both INAC and First Nation representatives have said they “are very satisfied with the quality and breadth of services provided by the Steering Committee.” (p. 4 of 2004 Report)

In both cases, the principles are the same: a number of First Nation communities coordinated their efforts and developed structures that played some of the roles normally assumed by school boards in provincial education systems. The Committee believes INAC should immediately review the possibility of expanding the best features of these models to other areas of the country. It therefore recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 14

That Indian and Northern Affairs Canada immediately review the strengths and weaknesses of the Mi’kmaq Education Agreement and the British Columbia First Nation Education Steering Committee and develop strategies to expand the best features of both initiatives to other First Nation communities. The Department must report on its progress in this work in its departmental performance report beginning with the report for the period ending March 31, 2006.

Finally, the Committee shares the Auditor General’s concern that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada’s policy documents, and its action plan in particular, are often written in a way that is only understandable to insiders, people who are already very familiar with the situation in First Nation education and the associated jargon. In her comments on the action plan, for example, the Auditor General said she “would have preferred a clearer presentation.” The Committee shares this sentiment and therefore recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 15

That Indian and Northern Affairs Canada ensure the clarity of its policy documents so that they can be understood by a wide audience.

CONCLUSION

In April 2000, the Auditor General issued a report documenting serious problems in First Nation education, including a substantial education gap. A month later, the Committee wrote a report demanding action on a number of fronts, including a recommendation that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada set out a clear set of roles and responsibilities beginning in 2001 02. The Department responded by agreeing to most of the recommendations and setting appropriate deadlines.

Five years later, in her November 2004 audit, the Auditor General found that the time needed to close the First Nation education gap has increased. Meanwhile, INAC deadlines had come and gone. In its first meeting with the Auditor General and INAC officials on 31 January 2005, the Committee heard more discussion about more studies and more consultations. Displeased, the Committee passed a motion asking the Department to draft an action plan and report back in May 2005.

The Committee acknowledges that INAC finally respected a deadline, producing a report on 29 April 2005. Like the Auditor General, the Committee takes note that the Department set as its first order of business the drafting of roles and responsibilities. The Committee is encouraged to see a detailed set of deadlines and trusts that these will be respected.

That said, the Committee believes that in some cases, these deadlines are set too far into the future. It is also concerned, again like the Auditor General, that the Action Plan is vague and prone to departmental jargon. Most importantly, given the Department’s history of broken promises, the Committee is sceptical about the Department’s commitment to respect its deadlines. The recommendations in this report seek some assurances above and beyond what is in INAC’s action plan. The future of First Nation communities demands nothing less.

Finally, the Committee feels that some share of the blame for the problems identified by the Auditor General and in this report stems from the fact that the Department has had four deputy ministers since 2000. This high turnover rate makes it difficult to achieve policy continuity and coherence or to deliver on promises made by previous deputy ministers.

This problem, which is particularly acute at INAC, is pervasive throughout government and motivated the Committee to recommend in its 10th Report that the government “endeavour to retain deputy ministers in their positions for periods of at least three years” and that deputy ministerial responsibilities “are in no way diminished should their tenure be less than the recommended three years.” ^[15] In the spirit of this earlier recommendation and given INAC’s serious turnover problems, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 16

That the government take immediate measures to retain deputy ministers at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for at least three years to ensure policy continuity and coherence, as recommended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts in its 10th report.